Matsuzaka is terrible. Even when he's been at his best, he is utterly unwatchable. He will have cost the Red Sox over $110 million for six years, of which the last four have been crap. He has been so bad, that I think he actually acts as a drag on Japanese pitchers coming to the US for years to come. He is the most inefficient, slowest-working, most emotionally detached pitcher I have ever seen. His main role on the team now is to give Crawford and Lackey somebody to stand next to so thT they don't look so infuriatingly terrible, as well.

#1
That's a hell of a trifecta...Crawford, Lackey and Dice-K, nearly $50 mil/per just taking up space and using perfectly good oxygen other, more productive humans could utilise.

I blame the 275 pitch high school game!

Like a year ago, some dude on here was actually telling me that he thought that Matsuzaka was worth the money. I darn near just about fell out of my chair.

When I suggested this here about a year/year and a half or so ago, I got completely excoriated. But the Sox should have punted, gone into rebuilding mode, let a bunch of veterans walk (accumulating draft picks), rebuilt for a couple of years, give the kids a ton of playing time, and resurge around 2014 or so. But no, they are the Red Sox, One Of Those Ballclubs Who Should Never Rebuild. Whatever.

When I suggested this here about a year/year and a half or so ago, I got completely excoriated. But the Sox should have punted, gone into rebuilding mode, let a bunch of veterans walk (accumulating draft picks), rebuilt for a couple of years, give the kids a ton of playing time, and resurge around 2014 or so. But no, they are the Red Sox, One Of Those Ballclubs Who Should Never Rebuild. Whatever.

So rebuild right after signing 2 $20-million players and while you have prime or near-prime years of Pedroia, Ellsbury and Lester? Which veterans, exactly, would have yielded these draft picks?

There was no need for the Red Sox to punt anything. The problem with this team is the star players who should be expected to produce are not. If Gonzalez, Pedroia and Lester were doing what was expected they'd be leading the Wild Card chase at the least.

As I noted elsewhere, they are 3 games out of the Wild Card right now. There are reasons for concern but the Sox have had a nightmare first half and are still in the thick of it. Rebuilding isn't necessary, playing to their ability is.

But the Sox should have punted, gone into rebuilding mode, let a bunch of veterans walk (accumulating draft picks),

Which veterans? Ortiz? They offered him arbitration and he accepted. No way to get picks without offering arb. Who else? They let Papelbon walk for picks. I can't think of any others. The last veteran the Sox re-signed was Josh Beckett in 2010. Or were you advocating for not re-signing Adrian Gonzalez last April?

The Red Sox should have signed someone better than Carl Crawford, and they should have signed someone better than John Lackey, and the Adrian Gonzalez trade is suddenly looking bad, but I don't see how it follows from those moves not panning out that the Red Sox shouldn't have even been trying to compete. It's Homer Simpson logic - you tried your best, and you failed miserably. The lesson is, never try.

It's Homer Simpson logic - you tried your best, and you failed miserably. The lesson is, never try.

And in this case, the "fail miserably" is a 90-win season and a .500 team that still has a chance to squeak into the playoffs.

To hijack the thread somewhat, with the upcoming four-game series between the Yanks and Sox, there are a few issues. From my reading on here, the Sox will get a decent number of their walking wounded back, but not until the series is over. I traditionally start to really pay attention to the standings around July 4th (if not later), and a sweep by the Yankees would put the Sox six or seven games out of the playoffs - not impossible to overcome, but a bad spot at the ASB. A sweep by the Sox and they might actually be in playoff position going into the break. All regular-season games are both big and small, but it's almost vital for the Sox to win at least one of these games, if not two or more.

Also, there are tickets still available at Fenway for the Sunday Night game? I'm shocked.

Also, there are tickets still available at Fenway for the Sunday Night game? I'm shocked.

Clicking on the ticket link at the Red Sox website I get "Currently, no tickets are available for this game. Please try back later as availability can change at any time." You can remain shock-free.

AL Win totals assuming the future winning % matches their current pythag %
Texas 98
New York 96
Chicago 92
Anaheim 89
Boston 87
Toronto 85
Tampa Bay 83
Baltimore 82
Oakland 81
Cleveland 80
Detroit 79

EDIT: With Toronto's pitching being what it is I'd say there are 3 real contenders (Angels, Sox, Rays) for two spots. On another note, Oakland's quietly wormed their way into the table. Sure, still a super long-shot, but I have to assume their current position is more than most were expecting at the All-Star break.

At the risk of getting into that whole tired argument over what the defintion of a "playoff" team is, Boston looks enough like one to me right now that seeing a punted season as a preferred alternative seems crazy.

And in this case, the "fail miserably" is a 90-win season and a .500 team that still has a chance to squeak into the playoffs.

At the risk of getting into that whole tired argument over what the defintion of a "playoff" team is, Boston looks enough like one to me right now that seeing a punted season as a preferred alternative seems crazy.

And that's with the club's big money acquisitions turning out completely horribly. If they were getting just a few wins from guys they're spending $60M on this year, they'd be in playoff position. That's how good the core of the team is, and how easy it is to be competitive when you have a $180M budget. There's no reason for the Sox to be rebuilding.

The thing that has kept me, as a Red Sox fan, interested in the team this season is that they are (whether originally planned or not) trying to simultaneously be competitive while injecting some young and new players into the mix. Look, the team is about three games out a playoff spot, despite having recently completed a 2-5 West Coast trip where four of the five losses came by exactly one run. With average luck over the last week, we're talking about the Red Sox being in the playoffs today. Whatever...during this season, they've been able to stay alive while:

- having a 24-year-old lefty go 8-4 with a league-average ERA, while striking out more than a guy an inning;
- trying to turn a young, vlauable asset (Bard) into an even more valuable asset, as a starting pitcher. It hasn't worked, but it was a good risk to take, in my opinion, because the upside of developing a young, successful starting pitcher is so valuable;
- are seeing if a 26-year-old, hard-throwing lefty (Morales) can be a successful starter. So far, the results are definitely more than anyone could've hoped for;
- Turned the reigns at 3B over to a 23-year-old who has acquitted himself well, so far;
- Have given Nava (I know he's 29, but still was an unproven asset to the team) a lot of ABs, and have turned him into either a very valuable bench player, or even a cheap, tradable asset
- Are giving Kalish meaningful ABs;
- have a 27-year-old, cost-controlled catcher with 16 HRs in half a season;
- saved millions at SS by trading Scutaro, and Aviles has been at least as effective; in the process, Mortensen, the guy acquired in the Scutaro deal, actually looks like a useful bullpen arm.

Basically, the team took their biggest weakness in 2011 (in my opinion) - a lack of depth in the organization at almost all positions - and quickly turned into a huge strength. They had no outfielders last year who could play (JD Drew was getting ABs in those final fateful days of 2011). In a few weeks, they'll have:

- Crawford, Ellsbury, Ross, Sweeney, Nava, and Kalish - that's an excellent depth chart in the OF;
- Salty, Shoppach, and Lavarnway at catcher - they answered the long-standing question of how the Sox would handle the post-Varitek era, and they did it at a low cost, and have depth;
- they had no starting pitching depth last season (Kyle Weiland was pitching waaaaay too much in 2011). Now, they have Beckett, Lester, Buchholz, Doubront, Morales, and Cook - I'm not even talking about Matsuzaka or Bard.
- the bullpen is very deep now - Aceves, Atchison, Miller, Padilla, Albers, Mortensen, Melanson - later this year, you'll probably have Bard and Bailey back. That is an extremely deep bullpen.

Forget about Ellsbury, Crawford, Lester, Beckett, and Buchholz - if Gonzalez and Pedroia were being themselves, this team would be in a playoff position today - despite all of changes described above. I think Valentine and Cherington have done a very good job this year in a difficult situation, and have made 2013 and beyond a little better in the process...

Rebuilding isn't necessary, playing to their ability is.

I'd say they've been playing over their heads actually. Nava, Morales, Doubront. Now more than likely Nava will have to sit for a guy who hasn't had an OBP above .300 in 1 1/2 years. In the second half they have 16 games against the Yanks, 11 against the Rays, 6 against the Rangers (?) 6 against the Angels.

And how long are we going to see

Punto
Aviles
Hurt Pedey
Underachieving AGon?

I don't think they have a chance, but I said that a long time ago.

The Aceves to closer thing has turned out to be a blunder.

Yeah, the Aceves thing hasn't really worked.

The Aceves to closer thing has turned out to be a blunder.

I don't really see how. The BP has been solid, so they wouldn't benefit from more innings from Aceves, and I think just about anyone else would have blown the same number of games since there isn't a 'Papelbon' in the pen (BARD is seen through hazy memory tinted glasses when people think about him). Now if the pen sucked, then yeah having Aceves as a long-man would be great.

What about Middlebrooks playing over his head? This post at Over the Monster points out the he has a high k%, high BABIP, and a high rate of FB's going for homeruns. It's a little over a week old, but not much has changed.

Aceves' save conversion stats and run prevention stats are not very good. So there's that problem.

But his underlying component stats and actual pitching have been good. 40 K, 13 BB, 3 HR, 36 H in 42 IP. Set loose for an inning or two at a time, he's developed a legitimate swing-and-miss fastball, and his curve has been a very nice secondary pitch. I think he's a perfectly reasonable relief ace.

The Sox are on pace to underperform just about every prediction that was made for them at the start of the season. Given the failings of the central figures on this team (either through performance or injury-driven playing time) and the fact that they are 4 games worse than their Pythagorean Record I think it is hard to say they are playing over their heads.

From that Over The Monster piece:

However, in light of strikeout rate, walk rate and that remarkably high BABIP, I am not too sure I believe in his current .326/.365/.583 nearly as much.My question is- Can Will Middlebrooks sustain this elite level of performance? The knee-jerk reaction would be to simply say no, he is getting lucky and that will change.

I don't think "Will Middlebrooks isn't 1995 Matt Williams" is really news. No one thinks he's a true 150 OPS+ hitter.

But Middlebrooks has plus power and makes hard contact. He should hit more flyballs for home runs than the usual player (there is massive difference between players in HR/FB numbers) and he should hit for a good BABIP. If Middlebrooks can play good defense at 3B while putting up a 110 OPS+, he's a very valuable player.

Here's how I see the second half

3B: Constant, niggling injuries to WMB...lots of Punto
SS: The same Aviles we have now
2B: An injured Pedey
1B: Improvement but not on last years level
C: Slight regression
LF: Crawford better than 2011 but still sucks
CF: Not last years Ells, but better than Kalish/Byrd.
RF: Same Ross
DH: Same Papi, maybe a little worse given the schedule.

SP: Beckett, Morales, Doubront, Cook, Lester would be my ideal rotation. Anybody else in the mix is just a drag. That's a decent quintet that keeps you in games.

BP: A little regression.

81-81

I wouldn't be at all surprised to see Franklin Morales turn into an excellent starting pitcher. He's always had a tremendous arm, has had flashes of being a quality starter, and he wouldn't be the first fireballing lefty to take a couple of years before he figures everything out.

Did you know Franklin Morales has started two postseason games?

Constant, niggling injuries to WMB

Not his name.

The Aceves to closer thing has turned out to be a blunder.

I don't really see how. The BP has been solid, so they wouldn't benefit from more innings from Aceves, and I think just about anyone else would have blown the same number of games since there isn't a 'Papelbon' in the pen (BARD is seen through hazy memory tinted glasses when people think about him). Now if the pen sucked, then yeah having Aceves as a long-man would be great.

I'm not bemoaning the loss of him as a multi-inning reliever, but the loss of all the games he has blown. I strongly disagree that anyone else would have blown the same number of games. The man has 6 losses in a half season!

Wily Mo Brooks

Dale - The Sox have a 46-36 expected record by runs scored / runs allowed. You expect them to play at basically the same level in the second half, but go .500 or a little below. Do you think that the Sox have a peculiar skill at losing games such that they will continue to significantly underplay their runs scored / runs allowed, or did you mean to describe a Red Sox team that was actually much worse in the second half?

I'm not bemoaning the loss of him as a multi-inning reliever, but the loss of all the games he has blown. I strongly disagree that anyone else would have blown the same number of games. The man has 6 losses in a half season!

That doesn't necessarily mean the conversion was a "blunder". It hasn't produced Red Sox wins yet, but he looks like a very good reliever, and I'd bet on him again if the season started today.

I wouldn't be at all surprised to see Franklin Morales turn into an excellent starting pitcher. He's always had a tremendous arm, has had flashes of being a quality starter, and he wouldn't be the first fireballing lefty to take a couple of years before he figures everything out.

2008 Baseball America Top Ten Prospects (pitchers only)

#3 Joba Chamberlain
#4 Clay Buchholz
#7 Clayton Kershaw
#8 Franklin Morales
#9 Homer Bailey
#10 David Price

Which is to say I agree with Tom. I love the idea of getting these "post-prospects." Not sure that's the right term but some guys just take awhile to figure it out. Andrew Miller is doing the same thing to a lesser extent. I don't think Morales is ever going to be a star but I wouldn't be shocked if he turns out to be a very useful MLB pitcher.

Here's how I see the second half...

81-81

So basically "everything that is going wrong will continue to go wrong, everything that's gone right will regress." Possible but unfairly pessimistic in my view.

That doesn't necessarily mean the conversion was a "blunder". It hasn't produced Red Sox wins yet, but he looks like a very good reliever, and I'd bet on him again if the season started today.

He looks like a good reliever, but "very good"? Have you seen some of the years other relivers around the league are having?

It seems like the Red Sox have been picking up "post-prospects" for a while now. Rich Hill is another one. So is Clayton Mortensen. And wow, they added John Maine and Ross Ohlendorf this past winter too. And Nationals bust Garrett Mock.

But all I can see in the previous few years is that they brought in ex-first-round busts David Aardsma and Kyle Snyder to join the bullpen ... they signed the twin Royals busts Runelvys Hernandez and Miguel Ascencio as well. And they brought back their own ex-prospect Kason Gabbard after losing him for Eric Gagne trade.

Starting catcher Jarrod Saltalamacchia is another big one.

The other thing about Morales is that his flop as a starter occurred in Colorado. Even post-humidor, that's a pretty extreme environment and it's not hard to imagine a pitcher who struggles in Colorado but would be useful in 29 other parks.

Is it more surprising that on July 5th, the Sox are in fourth or the Tiggers are in third?

Tigers. I think the Tigers were most people's "best bet" for 2012 and right now they look like they are in trouble. I think that the Sox are in 4th is not hugely stunning, that it's Baltimore and not Toronto in between them is probably the more surprising aspect.

Pre-season, I would have guessed with some confidence that by July 5th, the Sox are closer to the top of the division than the bottom

Is it more surprising that on July 5th, the Sox are in fourth or the Tiggers are in third?

Any answer other than "Mets are in second" is a lie.

Pre-season, I would have guessed with some confidence that by July 5th, the Sox are closer to the top of the division than the bottom

I probably would have too but the division is entirely over .500. That changes the perceptions a bit. I think part of what makes the Tigers more surprising (to me) is that they are 40-42 with a PR to match. They're getting great work from Cabrera and Verlander, Fielder has been very good and the pitching staff looks reminiscent of last year.

Well, you would have also have guessed that the bottom of the division would have been below .500

edit: coke to biscuit

Pre-season, I would have guessed with some confidence that by July 5th, the Sox are closer to the top of the division than the bottom

Of course. And indeed, the Sox Pyth record is closer to the top of the division than the bottom. So your pre-season evaluation of the club was probably closer to a correct estimate of team quality than their midseason record is.

Has anyone done a study about partial-season Pythags and whether the teams finished the season within the expected range given RS/RA? My inclination is not to trust this measurement over less than 162, but I'm willing to be convinced of that particular folly.

My inclination is not to trust this measurement over less than 162, but I'm willing to be convinced of that particular folly.

The question isn't whether you "trust" Pyth in the abstract, but whether you trust Pyth more or less than other measures of team quality - from actual team wins to individual player projections and everything in between.

If a team score thirty runs in three games, I don't then assume that they're a "true talent" 10 RPG offense, and I don't think anyone here would.

We all make choices in the importance of various measures of evaluation, but at some point small sample-size noise becomes predictive. For Pythag, when is that, generally? After twenty games? Forty games? 100 games?

We all make choices in the importance of various measures of evaluation, but at some point small sample-size noise becomes predictive. For Pythag, when is that, generally? After twenty games? Forty games? 100 games?

You already used a small-sample measure of team quality - team wins. That's subject to all of the same sample-size noise questions.

The question is not about Pyth record in the abstract, but Pyth record in relation to real wins, or in relation to various other measures more or less regressed from on the field results.

I'm not citing Pyth because I think Pyth is a sure measure of team quality 80 games into the season, but because I prefer Pyth to real W-L as a measure of team quality 80 games into the season.

My big worry is that if we leave this area undefined, it's ripe for fanboyish exploitation (and I'm not being accusing here). "My team is under .500, but by Pythag they are actually ten games over. They suck less than you think." Or, "Pythag is not favorable to my team, but their record is ten games over. Hurrah!"

Given that actual standings (and playoffs) are generated by record, my inclination is to pay more attention to record than to Pythag.

I prefer Pyth to real W-L as a measure of team quality 80 games into the season.

Understood, and respected. But how have you become convinced of this?

Understood, and respected. But how have you become convinced of this?

Data!

Clay Davenport, "Playoff Odds Report: Redux":

After 10 games played, the Pythagorean was the better estimator in 1076 cases, and the actual record was better 797 times; a clear win for Pythagoras (who would have loved baseball, by the way). The Pythagorean record turns out to almost always be a better predictor than the actual record, but its advantage steadily declines with every game played, until actual record becomes a better predictor after 140 games.

My big worry is that if we leave this area undefined, it's ripe for fanboyish exploitation

Virtually every stat can be used that way. I don't think you'd find anywhere here at BTF (well, maybe a few) who would take the approach you suggest. I think most folks here have a metric(s) that they trust more than others.

For example, I'm a big fan of K/BB rates for both hitters and pitchers. I find it rarely steers me wrong. For that reason I'm not real high on Will Middlebrooks. I desperately want him to be a star and he does things that are exciting but if he keeps up the K/BB rate he has I don't see him being a long-term success.

PR is the same thing. It seems to me (and this is anecdotal, not something I've studied) that teams who over/under perform their PR will regress to that point at some point.

I don't think MCoA is being inconsistent when he says he thinks the Sox are better than 42-40 because of their PR. He could be wrong (I agree with him FWIW) but I don't think there is anything fanboyish in his statements here.

Since the all-star break last year (~153 games):

Tm W L GB
NYY 93 62
TBR 85 69 7.5
TOR 78 74 13.5
BOS 77 77 15.5
BAL 77 78 16.0

Tm W L
DET 86 66
CHW 79 72 6.5
CLE 75 79 12.0
KCR 70 81 15.5
MIN 57 97 30.0

Tm W L
TEX 95 57
LAA 81 71 14.0
OAK 76 77 19.5
SEA 59 96 37.5

I don't think MCoA is being inconsistent when he says he thinks the Sox are better than 42-40 because of their PR. He could be wrong (I agree with him FWIW) but I don't think there is anything fanboyish in his statements here.

Agree and agree.

Also,

teams who over/under perform their PR will regress to that point at some point.

Torre-era Yankee teams had a way of outperforming PR fairly dramatically on a rather consistent basis. I think a lot of that was the generally strong bullpens in the Torre era.

SEA 59 96 37.5

Remember when Jack Zduriencik was one of the great up and coming GMs in the game? Suffice it to say that's looking like less and less of a good call all the time.

Torre-era Yankee teams had a way of outperforming PR fairly dramatically on a rather consistent basis. I think a lot of that was the generally strong bullpens in the Torre era.

The Mets were outperforming Pythag by a ton in the first couple months, and did it with the highest bullpen ERA in the game. They also had a great record in 1-run games. Actually watching those games made me realize that a bad bullpen can also trigger a supposedly "lucky" record. The pattern was that the Mets would squander a 3-4 run lead and eke out a 1 run win, or that they would go into the last innings down only a run, but end up losing by a handful. I'm not suggesting that bad bullpens will similarly outperform pythag, just that experience underlined how much randomness there is in these numbers.

Nick Cafardo says Pedroia injured a different part of the same thumb in Oakland, and may not play in this upcoming series.

Sois the consensus from the ST crowd that Crawford will be 'teh suck' this year?

If anyone is willing I would be happy to do a BRef sponsorship wager. Say take the mid of some Saber-friendly stat between Crawford's 2011 line and his up thru 2010 career average. I would take the over

Looks like Bob Zupcic's page is already taken but I would be willing to pick someone similar...

Sois the consensus from the ST crowd that Crawford will be 'teh suck' this year?

No. There are a set of vocal Crawford-is-worthless posters. I'm still betting on his projection.

Sois the consensus from the ST crowd that Crawford will be 'teh suck' this year?

Not in the ST crowd, but IMO, it depends if he is actually healthy or Red Sox healthy, like Pedroia and Gonzalez. If actually healthy, I agree with MCoA. If not, well, teh suck seems likely.

Say take the mid of some Saber-friendly stat between Crawford's 2011 line and his up thru 2010 career average. I would take the over

Give me some numbers and i'll probably take you up on it. Throw in some kind of injury clause too, to protect yourself.

Pedroia expected to go on the DL. ####### awesome. Sox only other infielder on the 40 man is Jose Iglesias.

Healthy infielders on the 40 man;

1B - Adrian Gonzalez
2B - Nick Punto
SS - Mike Aviles
3B - Mauro Gomez?
SS - Jose Iglesias

If Middlebrooks is healthy enough to play that would help. If they decide to put Pedro Ciriaco on the 40 man they'll have to waive someone. Eyeballing it the options would seem to be Lars Anderson or Stolmy Pimentel. Alternatively they could get creative and waive Shoppach and promote Lavarnway at the same time. I can't imagine a guy like Albers would get punted and they just called up Justin Germano so I assume he is sticking around. Clearly they have to promote either Iglesias or Ciriaco.

I'm not in on any betting, at the moment, but put me squarely in the "Crawford Sucks" camp. By the end of his career, 2011 will look like such a contract year for him, it will be laughable.

Oh, on that subject I'm in the "Crawford will be fine" camp. I also think Adrian Gonzalez will be fine.

I also think the Red Sox are going to ####### kill me. Right now October is shaping up as a "watch the DVDs from 2004 and 2007" month.

When will MLB wise up and sell individual games by request? I'd buy an HD version of 2003, ALDS game 5 in a heartbeat....if an HD version existed...

From Extra Bases:

The only infielder on the 40-man roster not in the major leagues is Triple A Pawtucket shortstop Jose Iglesias. The Red Sox could add Pawtucket infielder Pedro Ciriaco to the 40-man roster and call him up to replace Pedroia.

I'm really confused. Why on earth wouldn't you just bring up Iglesias and play Aviles at 3B and Punto at 2B? Aviles has actually played 3B in the majors (unlike whoever played there yesterday--Gomez?), and while Iglesias may not hit he can at least field. Why would you mess around more with the 40-man when a solution on the 40-man is staring you in the face?

I'm really confused. Why on earth wouldn't you just bring up Iglesias and play Aviles at 3B and Punto at 2B? Aviles has actually played 3B in the majors (unlike whoever played there yesterday--Gomez?), and while Iglesias may not hit he can at least field. Why would you mess around more with the 40-man when a solution on the 40-man is staring you in the face?

This. Play Iglesias. See what happens. I bet if you played Punto every day for three weeks he'd actually be a half-decent little player...

This. Play Iglesias. See what happens.

I'm glad I'm not the only one with this thought.

This all could have been figured out a long time ago if Pedroia had just ####### gone on the DL when he was first hurt. Instead we had to endure weeks of subpar production and have him praised for it by the likes of Cafardo for being a "gamer."

Why would you mess around more with the 40-man when a solution on the 40-man is staring you in the face?

Their current problem is not run prevention, and Ciriaco cannot possibly be hitting worse than Iglesias.

That aside... They won't do this. Both Crawford and Ellsbury are on the 60-day DL, which means in order to activate them two players would have to be removed from the 40-man roster. There's no way they make it three, by adding Ciriaco.

So, assuming they don't add Ciriaco... Which two do you remove from the 40-man roster, and how?

Here's the 40-man as of now:

Ortiz
Gonzalez
Pedroia
Aviles
Middlebrooks

Saltalamacchia
Ross
Lillibridge
Sweeney
Punto

Beckett
Buchholz
Lester
Morales
Doubront

Matsuzaka
Cook
Aceves
Miller
Melancon

Padilla
Albers
Tazawa
Bard
Mortensen

Hill
Atchison
Shoppach
Lavarnway
Kalish

Anderson
Pimentel
Podsednik
Nava
Iglesias

Stewart
Britton
Gomez
Germano
Lin

I don't know when Bailey will be back, but they have the same situation with him. He's on the 60-day DL, too.

I'm thinking they DFA Pimentel to try to outright him. The other will be by trade, sending two 40-man players to a team (Diamondbacks?) with an open spot on their 40-man, in return for a major leaguer (Willie Bloomquist?) and a minor-leaguer.